GaryN wrote:proof that our Sun emits any visible light or heat, and the experiments that would prove or disprove such an idea have never been performed.

Wait? Really?I can see it, it's really bright. And things get hot if they are not in the shade of something. Even in space.

Not withstanding a debate about what a wavelength or radiation or energy is. I do believe a bodies (star/planet/comet/asteroid/etc..) impedance or differential to other bodies could in fact contribute to what we see as bright/hot or dim/cold object. And the e-field/atmosphere of that body is an integral component of the equation.

interstellar filaments conducted electricity having currents as high as 10 thousand billion amperes

Standard theory describes our sun as a thermonuclear furnace. Were that the case, then as you got progressively further from the center of the sun and out into the system, it would would just keep getting colder and Pluto in particular would be frozen solid. There is no way to start with standard theories and believe that Pluto would have liquid water.

The Electric Universe (EU) brand of cosmology on the other hand has no such problems. Given the EU paradigm, if a planet is far enough off from a star like our sun, it could easily start to be heated by the same cosmic current which powers the sun itself.

Scientists using NASA’s Chandra X-ray Observatory have made the first detections of X-rays from Pluto. These observations offer new insight into the space environment surrounding the largest and best-known object in the solar system’s outermost regions.

While NASA’s New Horizons spacecraft was speeding toward and beyond Pluto, Chandra was aimed several times on the dwarf planet and its moons, gathering data on Pluto that the missions could compare after the flyby. Each time Chandra pointed at Pluto – four times in all, from February 2014 through August 2015 – it detected low-energy X-rays from the small planet.

Standard theory describes our sun as a thermonuclear furnace. Were that the case, then as you got progressively further from the center of the sun and out into the system, it would would just keep getting colder and Pluto in particular would be frozen solid. There is no way to start with standard theories and believe that Pluto would have liquid water.

The Electric Universe (EU) brand of cosmology on the other hand has no such problems. Given the EU paradigm, if a planet is far enough off from a star like our sun, it could easily start to be heated by the same cosmic current which powers the sun itself.

from the article: "But what’s significant in this finding is the fact that liquid oceans can exist on dwarf planets, moons, and even larger planets, without the tidal forces scientists had assumed were necessary for keeping things nice and flowing. Conor Gearin explains for New Scientist:

"The moons of gas giants, like Jupiter’s moon Ganymede, have subsurface oceans because tidal forces from the planet keeps them sloshing around. In contrast, Pluto seems to have a liquid ocean despite not experiencing a large planet’s tidal pull.

'You don’t need tidal heating in order to have an ocean - that’s an important lesson,' Francis Nimmo of the University of California at Santa Cruz says. 'It means that other big Kuiper Belt objects out there could have oceans, too.'"

--is erroneous

Why is "tidal heating" happening at the gas giants but then suddenly stops and doesn't happen at Pluto?

With circular reasoning, it always is. I think they try to proof their interpretation based on the interpretation itself.The suppose that nitrogen ice glaciers millions of years ago after a billions year ago 'impact' created the features that their supposed water with nitrogen ice sublimation would create. Because they already 'know' the geological history. Just need a way to make what they observe to fit their presumptions.

interstellar filaments conducted electricity having currents as high as 10 thousand billion amperes